On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Carlo Florendo wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > (in short, if i, the builder, explicitly choose *not* to add a
> > certain feature to my build, i think i have every right to expect that
> > some other part of my configuration isn't quietly going to put some
> > sub-choice of that feature back in behind my back.)
>
> I agree with this. However, if another feature actually depends on
> another explicitly unselected feature, there should at least be a
> warning prompt that such is the case.
>
> It probably would be hard though to track all dependencies.
i can't imagine this is a widespread problem in the tree -- i mean, we
keep using CONFIG_EMBEDDED as an example, and we mostly agree that
that's just a bad design, anyway.
but it should be obvious that, if you look at the Kconfig files, each
and every "select" directive has the potential to override a decision
you think you might have made elsewhere.
I'm just sayin'.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
